Re: A much more potent terrorost weapon than a rocket

I gave one, and you ignored it.

And you really believe that no one in power would ever be corrupt enough to pull some strings for someone? Surely you aren't _that_ naive!

Apologies - I must have missed it... :-)

No, I don't think that. But I also think that the instances of that happening would be relatively small. Not *everyone* who volunteers for service would have such influence, and those who do would be in the minority... thus reducing their effectiveness.

While it's becoming clear that you're not going to "get" the idea here, let's work on this a bit. First, I don't believe anyone said that all volunteer work would have to be part of what the novel calls Federal Service; I'm sure you could still do anything else you'd like to to benefit your fellow man. That has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Even if it did, can't you understand the actual work doesn't matter a bit? The ENTIRE purpose is to have you demonstrate that you can rise, even briefly, above simple self interest.

For the FOURTH time, it's not forced labor - the individuals can quit at any time (except for military personel in time of war) As far as indoctrination, I have no idea what you mean; as far as the labor being used for "pet projects" I'll assume that could happen, in much the way that judges sentence people to commumity service today - for the benefit of what the JUDGE feels are worthy projects.

I'll further assume this would be even less of a problem than it is now, given a more active and informed citizenry.

Nope, sorry. i spend most of my time in our nations "fine schools"; and while I agree with your assessment, that's not the issue. People are apathetic and disinterested in the political process for two reasons: First, they don't believe things will change no matter who they vote for - and they're right. Second, our system is stacked so that it's almost impossible to gather enough data to form an informed opinion. So they believe what ever TV commercial was on before they entered the booth. Perhaps this would change if our leaders were selected by 1,000 wise men, instead of a hundred million media brainwash victims.

And our current systems of government is entirely free of such influences? As for getting "out of it", it would be fairly easy to check if someone had done his service; and equally easy to check what it was. I'm sure the penalties for such influence peddling would be rather stiff; and who would risk them simply to earn the right to cast one vote?

Anything else troubling you?

Our government currently has the power to re-institute the draft at whim, and send you halfway around the world to be shot at - or to prison, your choice. For this you receive no benefit at all, aside from some tuition credits and variable-quality care at a VA hospital.

It scares me - I was subject to the Vietnam draft. Somehow, the OPTION to sign up for service that probably WON'T involve being shot at pales by comparison.

Or what power over the individual were YOU thinking about?

They shouldn't.

An appeasement to an overly powerful government.

A voluntary measure for those consumers who want reliable products. The rest can go outside the organization. To the extent that they are unable, that is due to the government abusing its power.

In effect, _you_ want to control the rights of others. You want to set the standard that they must meet. I bet you'd change your tune if someone else were setting the standards.

That's far more power than the government should have, and violates the Constitutional protection against involuntary servitude.

Why hand over your most important civil right, in exchange for giving the government even more power?

Okay - look at it this way...

You don't give immigrants the 'right' to vote, until they've become citizens. What's involved in becoming a citizen...? You must live in the country for X number of years, take lessons in American history and culture, pass a test about said course, and pledge fealty to the State.

If voting is the 'right' you claim it to be, why not grant it to everyone who lands at your shores... right away? We've been spoiled into thinking of voting as a natural right, merely because we've had the good fortune of being born in the countries we live in.

Ray - somebody else ALREADY sets the standards I have to meet. In casting my vote, I'm restricted by what country, city, even neighbourhood I live in. If that weren't the case, I'd be able to cross into *any* area I please, grab a ballot, and vote. But I can't do that. Why? Because some committee has decided that my right to vote is limited to the area I hang my hat in. :-)

Well, it's not MY plan; it's something from a science fiction novel that I believe might bear consideration. Seriously, please read the booj. There's a lot more context than I could possibly provide here; a different way of voting is just the most obvious of a variety of sweeping changes.

I DO believe that changing the nature of those who vote could help make other changes in the government; I do NOT believe those are the only changes that need to be made.

In fact, at the beginning of this thread, I said it was impossible to significantly change our current voting rights without overthrowing the government - which I suspect would change more than the voting setup...

Better still to bar lawyers from holding public office. Arbitrary? Yup. Unfair? Probably. But I believe it would to more to make things WORK in this country than any other single change.

This may be sacreligious, but...

What is wrong with someone having influence to get out of a job? If a parent has earned (or simply been born with) a certain amount of 'power', why should that not be reflected by the parent on behalf of the child? This is simply one degree removed from the ability to will ones financial assets, for example. You can't tell me (for example) that JFK Jr. got where he got (famous, I mean, not floating in water) simply because of his "innate talent". But, I could argue that JFK had "earned" enough "influence" that no harm is done to society by letting his son cash in on it.

I'm not, BTW, saying that this is my belief, but I think it's one of those things that gets gut level reactions rather than thought out responses...

David Erbas-White

And that was defined... How? Can you point to the 'scientific reasoning' that led to the 18 year old cutoff? Or does it matter that (for example) other traditions choose adulthood at age 12, or 13, or 14, or 15? Or when they could accomplish a specific task?

How would your argument be if the 'government' decided that you stopped being a child when you decided to volunteer for two years of public service, thus demonstrating the 'maturity' to be selfless?

They do but only for criminal prosecutions, but not for any other purpose. Sees like the whiole idea of criminal prosecutons is to hold the state to a FAR HIGHER standard of conduct, not far lower.

Your constitutional rights being stripped from you. What a rape.

Jerry

Playing devils' advocate for a moment, Jerry, here's another way to look at it:

Upon reaching 16, you're considered an adult if you commit what is unarguably the most heinous behavior society proscribes, in other words, murder. At this point you are expected to 'demonstrate' the ability to accept 'phase 2' of becoming an adult.

Upon reaching 18, you're considered an adult in regards to responsibilities (contracts, marriage, property ownership, military participation). You've reached phase 2, and you have now received both additional rights and responsibilities (in addition to those of phase 1

- i.e., if you commit murder, it's not a "do over").

Upon reaching 21, if you're still alive and free, you're considered an adult in regards to vices (alcohol, gambling, etc.). You've reached the final phase, and perhaps as a result of the 'phasing' of the steps of maturity, you're better off for it.

David Erbas-White

No other standard agrees, especially the law itself. To bypass the law and "try teens as adults" as a means to "save juvinile court time" is a scam. To save juvinile court time, do fewer social crime prosecutions such as simple drug posession and prostitution and save the courts for major crimes.

Do NOT solve the self-caused problems by puting teens in the adult criminal system.

Jerry

In private life, that's fine (up to a point). But when it comes to government and the law, it violates the whole concept of representative government, in that those who govern should have to suffer under the same laws as the rest of us. Otherwise, you might as well just scrap the Constitution and set up another monarchy and fiefdom.